I'd never heard of Dawkin's Information Bomb idea of a different sort of exploding cosmological body. Thanks!

And, regarding your "Exponential growth is hardwired

into the system" comment, you might find my own paper interesting... I offer a highly organized (if very general) map for how we can, indeed, "cut present-day problems down to a manageable size".

6 days later

I gladly append my name to the long list of people who enjoyed your essay!

One remark.

It occurred to me that, if one takes a fully abstract version of the nested shell model (dropping any biosphere-oriented interpretation, and any labelling of the levels), and populates it with randomly moving identical balls, initially all packed at level zero, one still obtains an apparent progress, in the sense that, with time, more and more shells will be populated, even with perfectly symmetric gateways (this is the second law of thermodynamics in action.)

I think it would be important to stress the essential differences between this elementary, biology-free layered onion and the one that you (and Dennett) refer to - after realizing that *both* of them, in some sense, enable progress.

One crucial difference may be in the fact of letting balls differentiate and evolve: a more complex ball may be capable of exploiting energetic opportunities that are out of the reach of a less complex ball; and this new match between agent and environment creates a new opportunity for growth, a new life form, a new shell (if I understood correctly!)

Another attractive goal that your essay suggests (at least to me) is to come up with some very simple, stochastic or algorithmic *formal* model of interacting agents capable of capturing the agent-environment-energy relation mentioned above, then run a simulation to see whether some quantized orbitals of life forms emerge for free.

Final remark: I see interesting similarities, or compatibilities, between the nested shell model of progress and Teilhard de Chardin s views at the biosphere and the cosmos (as expressed in The Human Phenomenon, 1955). I refer in particular to the distinction he makes between the two energies - tangential and radial. He would imagine the first to be operational within a single layer, while the second would be responsible for the growth of complexity and the shift to the next upper layer.

However, following your reasoning, the radial energy may be regarded as completely illusional: vertical emergence would be a trivial side effect of horizontal activities (which does not make me particularly unhappy.)

Dear SA

Notwithstanding all the points with which I disagree, your essay did expand my horizon. Thanks.

Many of your statements of "...must..." or "...has to be..." are false in the sense there are other possibilities.

That humanity could not steer is not clear. Humanity as a whole does not consciously or "scientifically" direct humanity. Nature chooses. Certainly, complex systems are unpredictable with our current understanding. Understanding and predictability are efficient and mankind's way, but are not required. Nature will decide anyway. Trial-and-error is a time-tested method to solve problems. Science uses it by developing many models.

Nature gives us the value judgment or the goal of survival. That we "must" use "scientific rigueur" is unproven and likely false. We can steer our future by a trial-and-error method toward nature's goal of survival. The science is in the choice of the trial-and-error method.

The idea of "...whether the evolution of life in general can or can not be described as progressive must be faced." Is in doubt. I submit this is a diversion and is unanswerable. The definition of progressive" is questionable and vague. Life either tends toward survival or dies. S. J. Gould was correct but, perhaps, for the wrong reason.

I agree that we must get off this doomed rock if our progeny is to survive is only partially valid. I like the thought that DNA was transported to Earth via and asteroid from another nova (transpermia). If we don't thin our way off this rock, 'm sure nature will move some DNA maybe from earth (probably not from humans) to another planet.

I think the "... core values of democracy, science and humanity..." are still being tested in the caldron of nature. Further, "...humanitarian values..." may not produce survival. But I think "...growth of technological capabilities..." has a history of producing survival for mankind if by no other means than increased war ability.

Defining a goal other than survival is unnecessary but does fit mankind's way of doing things.

Enjoying the ride seems passive. Passive in nature fails to survive.

Hodge

4 days later

Hello Stephen,

I enjoyed your essay; but I take issue with the notion that we do not steer - because I think this view is a luxury we dare not allow ourselves, on the premise that there will always be individuals who subvert the will of the people for personal gain. I think perhaps it would be better to state "Humanity Must Steer, or it Will Not Enjoy the Ride." I am in complete agreement that we must steer our way to the stars and that going into space is the intelligent thing to do, but I lack your conviction that this is something humans will do regardless of which of the three factions prevails at any moment.

Your assessment that the view of the three categories can allow us to segment the view on growth are naive, at best, because this ignores the modus of learning to do things more intelligently - rather than equating growth and progress with increasing levels of scale. While on the one hand I acknowledge that extremely large-scale fabrication facilities are needed to efficiently construct space vehicles, I wonder if enormity of scale is otherwise a justifiable measure of growth and progress. And finally, I offer this.

Perhaps humans are not ideally suited for space travel anyway. Maybe intelligent marsupials would be better adapted to the rigors of space and long periods in an enclosed space, than placental mammals. Maybe the economical thing to do is for human scientists to advance the evolution of kangaroos, to create a human-roo hybrid - that would harvest the asteroids for us. Or maybe we both read too much science fiction.

All the Best,

Jonathan

    Dear Stephen,

    As many others in this competition have mentioned, you claim that "the future evolution of a system as complex as human civilisation is unpredictable".

    That is true of course, but it should not be overdone. Let's think of a smaller case involving, say, my wishing to take my family on holiday this year. This decision is part of a complex socio-economic system. Yet it is not hard to make it happen. Sure, there might be unforeseen issues (monetary or otherwise), but one can adapt and replan. What your claim points to, I think, is that idea that we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control. Yet humans are rather special in that they can act teleologically, with an end goal in mind, and modify, switch, and adapt to achieve it. I think this kind of future-avoidant thinking is in part responsible for some of the major problems with humanity. That is: we don't always need to predict because we can actively make (many) things happen by acting so as to bring them about.

    Best,

    Dean

    9 days later

    You wrote this essay beautifully. What is not clear to me, though, is what part, if any, do individual human beings play in the future of humanity... To what extent are they relevant for your account?

    Stephen,

    Well-organized thoughts on a prescribed direction of space exploration and exploitation. However, as a type 0 civilization, we seem to have meager capabilities for space with a technology limiting human survival, speed of spacecraft and the high cost of launching vehicles. As you suggest, our endeavor is not exactly conscious, and perhaps with a conscious effort, we might advance quickly. It is true that a plasma propulsion system can reduce a Mars trip to some 3 months rather than 2 years, but still harmful radiation is a survival factor. I assume you are speaking of solar-system travel to asteroids and other close sources of resources. What time frame do you pose for a survival that steering for the future must consider.

    I like your approach but like my essay, it is difficult to foretell a viable approach once you describe our current steering problems.

    Jim

      Hi Stephen,

      I like how you have considered the potential confrontation of different groups who have different views of how we should prepare for and build the future.It would, as you explain, be difficult to unite mankind with a single purpose without imposing views upon people, compulsion. Compulsion to support for example a technological trans-human pathway would be as bad, as I see it, as compulsion to follow an extreme religious fundamentalist pathway. Though both have supporters who see that pathway as correct and desirable. The path we really do not want is unlimited growth in economies (using up resources more quickly) or populations (requiring more resources).

      Migration to space will not solve the population problem, all the while there is growth, but the idea will give hope. There may be resources that could be mined but rather than doing that, which requires a lot of energy, it might be better to learn restraint and to reuse the resources we already have and invest the money for space programmes into developing resilient, self sufficient, sustainable Earth societies.

      I can see the goal of space migrations being something that all mankind could get behind with appropriate political-social engineering. Though at present the cost and current technology are limiting factors.It would be necessary to sell the idea to the people making the cost and dangers seem acceptable and the migration a natural progression in mankind's development that gives hope for the future survival of the species.

      I think your essay is well written, relevant and thought provoking. Good luck,Georgina

      What an excellent essay, Stephen.

      Though I disagree with the premise that humanity cannot steer its future -- I can see how the assumption of hierarchies forces that conclusion. I argue the opposite in my own essay, which hopefully should shortly appear -- that laterally distributed, not hierarchical, information in a complex system makes self determination possible. I hope we can get into a lovely discussion of these contrasting models. Thanks for a great read!

      Tom

        I meant to say "lively," yet perhaps "lovely" fits!

        It's interesting that a denial of the question should rate so highly (currently top) among those trying to answer it. When you're able to catch up, Stephen, I'd like to critique your essay a little. Would you be willing to reciprocate?

        Dear Author Stephen Ashworth

        Rarely seen a thoughtful analysis and focused as you.

        I also noticed: Humans should not (and can not) directing future.

        Let come Future by measures of Future will use to choose us?

        Best wishes with the highest point - Hải.CaoHoàng

        Respektlosigkeit zu Regierung und Wirtschaft ist nicht sinnvoll.

        Hi Stephen,

        You write superbly! That was a pleasure to read. Like many others though I object to the somewhat fatalistic elements presented. Rather than simple observers, are we not participants in the process you propose? If so, then our choices, part of the system or not, will profoundly alter the outcome, and though we should be extremely wary of power-hungry people highjacking the reigns of power, should we not still attempt to steer in a direction informed by morality (and not simply an 'inevitable' future)?

        None the less, I found the concepts you present still very interesting! Thanks once again for a superb read,

        Ross

        A wonderfully written essay, Stephen, even if we do come from opposite sides of the fence on this issue. You critical comments and vote on my own post would be greatly appreciated.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2063

        What I will say here is that I recently read Lee Billings' Five Billion Years of Solitude which has shaped my view on these issues. Billings quote a scholar Tom Murphy who calculated that if the world would grow at a meager 2.5 % per year our energy requirements would demand the entire Milky Way galaxy covered in energy capturing Dyson Spheres. He quote Murphy: "We know in some detail what human beings were doing 2,500 years ago. I think I can safely say what they WON'T be doing 2,500 years hence".

        Our current path is unsustainable over the medium term, and the explosion of growth since the industrial revolution may prove shorter than many expect.

        Thanks for a thought provoking essay.

        Best of luck!

        Rick Searle

        As the title implies, this essay rejects attempting to answer the question; instead, it adopts the familiar stance of awarding almost moral force status to "evolution" which is considered as beyond human control, notwithstanding the claim that we will now take control of our literal evolution as biological or technological creatures.

        Basically, the idea is that humans must choose human extinction so that some "more evolved" critter can take our place and carry on the great project of evolution. This is taking the familiar fear that Darwin's theory would banish God and carrying it one step further: Evolution as God, as the source of moral order.

        E.g.:

        "Several lines of technological progress, particularly nanotechnology, information technology, robotics, genetics and medicine, are together converging on a new definition of what it is to be human, or perhaps on a range of new definitions, and this increased flexibility will be valuable as humans adapt to living in novel engineered environments away from the planet on which they originally evolved."

        OK, first, the goal to which these technologies are converging is "a new definition of what it is to be human"?

        And why are we interested in redefining such an important word? We know what it means. We are this species, Homo sapiens.

        But I guess you would have to redefine "human" in order to make sense of the proposition that some creatures which are not Homo sapiens will make use of "this increasing flexibility... as humans adapt...."

        I, personally want no part of any revolution whose completion requires the redefinition of "human."d

        Don't mistake a clear view for a short distance. I count myself among the critics who say that today "extraterrestrial resources are too widely diffused over too large a volume of space for economic retrieval." Of course this won't always remain true. But it seems far from clear why humanity's future becomes better if we "spread enlightened understanding of our place in the universe and our potential for future growth using the material and energy resources of our own and other solar systems." People have limited time and attention, and the time people spend understanding this is time taken away from other things. If we are a long way away from actually using space resources, I don't see the point in forcing people today who are focused on other issues to understand that eventually we hope to expand into space.

        5 days later

        Dear Stephen,

        I have enjoyed your reading your very well-written essay. I am an enthusiast for migration to other habitable planets. However, one big hurdle, in my opinion, is the time of travel, which is enormous, compared to human life-span. It sets great challenges for technology, for it would seem generations would live and die on the way before the destination can be reached! Physics would be of great help if one day we could understand whether the speed of light is a fundamental theoretical barrier, or only a representation of our current theoretical understanding. Maybe one day when we understand quantum theory better, and we have a quantum theory of gravity, we might also understand space-time structure more deeply, perhaps enabling an easier `way out' for migration to outer space. But I think this is very futuristic and I wonder if humanity should first work to set other terrestrial problems right, so that when we understand science well enough to migrate conveniently, we are still left with enough resources to do so.

        Kind regards,

        Tejinder

        9 days later

        P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

        10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

        9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

        8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

        7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

        6 - slightly favorable indifference

        5 - unfavorable indifference

        4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

        3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

        2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

        1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

        After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

        The following is a general observation:

        Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)